On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:33:14PM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 10/9/24 10:55, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Currently, the cast of the first argument to cmpxchg_emu_u8() drops the
> > __percpu address-space designator, which results in sparse complaints
> > when applying
() semantics, which are plently well-defined on variables in
general, whether per-CPU or otherwise.
Reported-by: kernel test robot
Closes:
https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202409251336.toc0tvwb-...@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Cc: Vineet Gupta
Cc:
diff --git a/arch/arc/include
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 09:10:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 01:40:45PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
> > master
> > head: 684a64bf32b6e488004e0ad7f0d7e9
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 01:40:45PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
> master
> head: 684a64bf32b6e488004e0ad7f0d7e922798f65b6
> commit: f2519d4d4fc4d36f2b58c5614357de9f5b4032fc ARC: Emulate one-byte cmpxchg
> date: 12
Use the new cmpxchg_emu_u8() to emulate one-byte cmpxchg() on arc.
[ paulmck: Drop two-byte support per Arnd Bergmann feedback. ]
[ paulmck: Apply feedback from Naresh Kamboju. ]
[ paulmck: Apply kernel test robot feedback. ]
[ paulmck: Apply feedback from Vineet Gupta. ]
Signed-off-by: Paul E
Hello!
This series provides an emulation function for one-byte cmpxchg(),
and uses it for the remaining architectures not supporting these in
hardware and not providing emulation. The emulation is in terms of
the fully ordered four-byte cmpxchg() that is supplied by all of these
architectures. T
On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 09:44:39PM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
>
> On 8/5/24 21:28, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 06:27:57PM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> >> Hi Paul,
> >>
> >> On 8/5/24 12:21, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>
On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 06:27:57PM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 8/5/24 12:21, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Use the new cmpxchg_emu_u8() to emulate one-byte cmpxchg() on arc.
> >
> > [ paulmck: Drop two-byte support per Arnd Bergmann feedback. ]
> &g
On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 10:13:38PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-08-05 at 12:21 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Use the new cmpxchg_emu_u8() to emulate one-byte cmpxchg() on sh.
> >
> > [ paulmck: Drop two-byte support per Arnd Bergmann feedback. ]
Use the new cmpxchg_emu_u8() to emulate one-byte cmpxchg() on arc.
[ paulmck: Drop two-byte support per Arnd Bergmann feedback. ]
[ paulmck: Apply feedback from Naresh Kamboju. ]
[ paulmck: Apply kernel test robot feedback. ]
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Cc: Vineet Gupta
Cc: Andi Shyti
Cc
Use the new cmpxchg_emu_u8() to emulate one-byte cmpxchg() on xtensa.
[ paulmck: Apply kernel test robot feedback. ]
[ paulmck: Drop two-byte support per Arnd Bergmann feedback. ]
[ Apply Geert Uytterhoeven feedback. ]
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Tested-by: Yujie Liu
Cc: Andi Shyti
Cc
Use the new cmpxchg_emu_u8() to emulate one-byte cmpxchg() on sh.
[ paulmck: Drop two-byte support per Arnd Bergmann feedback. ]
[ paulmck: Apply feedback from Naresh Kamboju. ]
[ Apply Geert Uytterhoeven feedback. ]
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Cc: Andi Shyti
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt
Cc: Masami
Hello!
This series provides an emulation function for one-byte cmpxchg(),
and uses it for the remaining architectures not supporting these in
hardware and not providing emulation. The emulation is in terms of
the fully ordered four-byte cmpxchg() that is supplied by all of these
architectures. T
Use the new cmpxchg_emu_u8() to emulate one-byte cmpxchg() on arc.
[ paulmck: Drop two-byte support per Arnd Bergmann feedback. ]
[ paulmck: Apply feedback from Naresh Kamboju. ]
[ paulmck: Apply kernel test robot feedback. ]
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Cc: Vineet Gupta
Cc: Andi Shyti
Cc
Use the new cmpxchg_emu_u8() to emulate one-byte cmpxchg() on arc.
[ paulmck: Drop two-byte support per Arnd Bergmann feedback. ]
[ paulmck: Apply feedback from Naresh Kamboju. ]
[ paulmck: Apply kernel test robot feedback. ]
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Cc: Vineet Gupta
Cc: Andi Shyti
Cc
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 05:07:03AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git
> master
> head: 6bd343537461b57f3efe5dfc5fc193a232dfef1e
> commit: d4f26ed66a53be57567bf71d60e80a116cec34e1 [4535/6266] ARC: Emulate
> one-byte cmpxc
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 04:17:01PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> The arc and sh defconfig builds failed due to following build warnings /
> errors
> on the Linux next-20240415 with gcc-9 and gcc-11.
>
> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing
>
> Following builds failed.
> sh:
> arc:
> -
Use the new cmpxchg_emu_u8() to emulate one-byte cmpxchg() on arc.
[ paulmck: Drop two-byte support per Arnd Bergmann feedback. ]
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Cc: Vineet Gupta
Cc: Andi Shyti
Cc: Andrzej Hajda
Cc: Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt
Cc: Arnd Bergmann
Cc:
---
arch/arc
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 01:57:32PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, at 19:06, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 10:14:08AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024, at 23:39, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > Us
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 10:06:14AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 10:14:08AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024, at 23:39, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Use the new cmpxchg_emu_u8() and cmpxchg_emu_u16() to emulate one-byte
> > >
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 10:14:08AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024, at 23:39, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Use the new cmpxchg_emu_u8() and cmpxchg_emu_u16() to emulate one-byte
> > and two-byte cmpxchg() on arc.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McK
Use the new cmpxchg_emu_u8() and cmpxchg_emu_u16() to emulate one-byte
and two-byte cmpxchg() on arc.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Cc: Vineet Gupta
Cc: Andi Shyti
Cc: Andrzej Hajda
Cc: Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt
Cc:
---
arch/arc/Kconfig | 1 +
arch/arc/include/asm
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 07:34:04AM +, Liu, Yujie wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Fri, 2023-08-11 at 08:41 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 01:02:12PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > tree:
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/li
I know Mark has been prodding that with something sharp.
>
> The last version was tested by a number of people and I'm hoping to not have
> broken anything in the meantime ;-)
>
>
> Changes since v2:
150 rcutorture hours on each of the default scenarios passed. This
i
On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 02:40:32AM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 08:26:22AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:> Would you
> be willing to try another shot in the dark, but untested
> > this time? I freely admit that this is
Or better yet, try the patch that Rafael proposed. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 08:26:22AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 03:24:58AM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022
On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 03:24:58AM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 10:20:53AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 12:43:06PM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 04:27:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wro
cessary to build the kernel with CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG=y to enable
equivalent debugging.
Could you please try your test with the -rce commit shown below applied?
Thanx, Paul
-------
ove these calls.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney
We have some fun conflicts between this series and Frederic's context-tracking
series. But it looks like these can be resolved by:
1. A patch on top of Frederic's series that provides the
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 04:34:52PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Paul E. McKenney
> > Sent: 06 June 2019 10:44
> ...
> > But m68k is !SMP-only, correct? If so, the only issues would be
> > interactions with interrupt handlers and the like, and doesn't curren
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 09:41:04AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:14 PM Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 06:08:35PM +, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> > > On 5/31/19 1:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > &
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 06:08:35PM +, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 5/31/19 1:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> I'm not sure how to interpret "natural alignment" for the case of double
> >> load/stores on 32-bit systems where the hardware and ABI allow for 4 byte
> >> alignment (ARCv2 LDD/STD, ARM L
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 09:41:17AM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Vineet Gupta
> > Sent: 30 May 2019 19:23
> ...
> > While it seems reasonable form hardware pov to not implement such atomicity
> > by
> > default it seems there's an additional burden on application writers. They
> > could
> >
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:22:42AM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Had an interesting lunch time discussion with our hardware architects
> pertinent to
> "minimal guarantees expected of a CPU" section of memory-barriers.txt
>
>
> | (*) These guarantees apply only to properly aligned
There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
pair. This commit therefore removes the underlying arch-specific
arch_spin_unlock_wait().
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Cc: Vineet Gupta
Cc
35 matches
Mail list logo
